I was wrong! The GOP has not caved yet on THE SEQUESTER [lone wolf howls eerily]. Then again, Thursday is not quiet over.

Detroit is about to be taken over by the State of Michigan, finance-wise. The decline of this once great city is astounding. It could eventually become the first major U.S. city reduced to ruins. Sad but predictable.

The following are bullet points which will accompany my upcoming address to the CSRA (Agusta, GA) Libertarian Party. The event will be on Sunday, March 10, 2013 at 1 p.m. at the Roadrunner Cafe, Washington Rd., Augusta. This material is subject to change prior to March 10th and may be deviated from at the event.

These points were developed in part from my recent column, How to Interact with the Police,https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/how-to-interact-with-the-police/, 2/26/2013. Please visit my website for more information. The material herein and my remarks and answers during the presentation do not constitute legal advice and do not establish an attorney-client relationship. This information is given for its own sake, it is a general legal education. Consult with an attorney for legal advice in specific cases. The following points were developed as a guide (only) for my presentation to the CSRA Libertarian Party:

Don’t talk. Do not ever talk to the police under any circumstances.

Talking gets people arrested and convicted (put in prison).

There are exceptional reasons why you might need to address the cops sometimes.

What to do when confronted by the police, especially while carrying a weapon.

Never agree to meet with the police nor answer questions nor make statements.

Never voluntarily approach the police (except in life or death emergency).

They lack evidence, don’t help them.

Thank God for guns! Guns keep us safe! Hoplophobia.

Don’t believe the government or the news.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken.

Do not make a spectacle of yourself. Lay low. Keep quiet. Don’t talk.

The South is still somewhat gun-friendly. The cops are not your friends!

Carry permits – play the game. Make no waves. Move to a freer State.

Avoid confrontation; carry concealed.

If they don’t see it, they won’t question it!

Open carry does not give probable cause, by itself.

The cops kill people and are not prosecuted.

Civil rights violations. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (KKK Act). Bivens actions.

Self-defense shootings mean contact with the police. Say as little as possible.

In my popular Posse Comitatus column, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/posse-comitatus/, I made a possibly confusing and unfair allusion to Caesar bringing about the demise of the Roman Republic and ushering in the Empire. It seems that “crossing the Rubicon” is too simply of an explanation for what really happened. The actual process from republic to empire lasted for decades and involved many actors in addition to Caesar.

The Roman Republic existed from roughly 500 B.C. until 27 B.C. Most republics do not make it that long. Ours, if it can still be credibly called a republic, is coming apart at the seams after only 237 years. The Roman Republic replaced the line of monarchs who had ruled Rome for over two and a half centuries. It was succeeded by the Empire, which lasted from 27 B.C. until the German Odoacer set himself up as the first King of Italy in 476 A.D.

During the Republic the government was operated by a Senate (congress) and one or two Consuls (presidents). Most public officials were limited to one-year terms. Many of these public offices, including the Consuls, survived into the Empire, though with greatly reduced authority. There had been a tremendous amount of political strife for over 100 years before Augustus Caesar (Caesar Divi F. Augustus) became the First Emperor.

Caesar (Julius Caesar of the first Triumvirate) returned from war and was expected or feared to take dictatorial control of the Republic. He became a dictator of sorts, but he never got the chance to fully dominate the Senate, being assassinated on March 15, 44 B.C. His murder at the hands of Casca, Brutus, and Cassius is one of the better known events of ancient history. However, the conspiracy included dozens of Senators. Allegedly (according to Tacitus?), once Caesar was killed, the chief leaders of the conspiracy called out repeatedly to Cicero by name, as if to showcase their good works. It is also alleged Cicero waved off the acts and attention in disgust.

(Cicero, champion of Constitutional republicanism. Google Images).

Many have theorized Cicero was a co-conspirator. I don’t think so. Marcus Tullius Cicero was a lawyer, statesman, Senator, and former Consul (63 B.C.) and is widely considered one of antiquities foremost figures. His influence on Latin language is still felt with prominence today. I quote he frequently as he was one of the most critical opponents of the Constitutional demise and all dictatorial actions. He would be one of my two picks as the Ron Paul of his day, the other being the black-robed Cato. Despite his constant opposition to totalitarianism, I do not think he would have sanctioned murder as a means to eliminate the practice. I think his morals, nobility, and steadfast dedication to the law would have prevented his involvement.

Heedless of his own peril Cicero kept up his criticism of Mark Anthony and Company (the Second Triumvirate) and was, in 43 B.C., labeled an enemy of the state and hunted down mercilessly. He was captured on December 7, 43 B.C. and immediately murdered by Anthony’s troops. His last words (according to Plutarch?) were allegedly: “There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly.” He was decapitated and his head and hands displayed publicly in Rome.

This brutal display of lawlessness and savagery was formerly utilized by would-be or quasi dictators. Gauis Marius and Lucius Sulla had used similar tactics against their enemies. Such horrific treatment was the most high-tech form of intimidation at the time, drones were still more than 2000 years away.

Marius served seven terms (at intervals from 107 – 86 B.C.) as Consul despite laws enacting terms limits. His power was derived from constant warfare and the need for “emergency” powers from the Senate. War and “emergency” powers go hand in hand with dictatorship. If you haven’t watched the news in the past 12 years, perhaps you did, at least, see the three Star Wars prequel movies.

Sulla served two terms as Consul (82 – 81 B.C.) and, like Marius, gained much power as a petty dictator through war powers. Sulla’s wars were not confined to foreign enemies, marching on Rome itself in 82 B.C. The Senate foolishly conferred upon him dictatorial powers for life. These he immediately began to use, murdering 1,000s of enemies, with no semblance of Due Process. Previously, the Republic had prided itself on justice and faithful execution of the laws, rather than of citizens and nobles.

So, you see, Caesar has a product of his times as much as a dictator. His short reign came in the middle of a century marked by Constitutional decline. Caesar is the best remembered name from the period though his actual power differed little from that of his predecessors and successors. He could have done eternally great service to the Republic and perhaps changed centuries of history if he had followed in the footsteps of one of his ancient precursors.

History also remembers Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, mostly out of awe for his humility in power. Cincinnatus was Consul and was granted dictatorial powers during a time of war twice, in 458 B.C. and again in 439 B.C. Unlike 99% of historical figures granted such rare authority, Cincinnatus immediately abandoned his high position once crises abated. Perhaps Caesar had such intention but was not allowed time to exercise it. Perhaps not.

I hope you have seen, within this column, parallels to modern America. To me they seem both unmistakable and also unmistakably dire in their warnings to us.

We currently have a President who, unchallenged essentially, claims the right to murder American citizens without Due Process. At the same time, we have a craven opposition party which, rather than impeach and remove the usurper, propose to give him Constitutional powers beyond his office. All of this, consequently, stems from “emergencies” whether martial or economic. This has become an established pattern since 2001 though it has roots much older.

This year we mark the 100th anniversary of some of the most destructive Acts in our history. In 1913 the 16th and 17th Amendments killed the States’ fading power against the central government and the Federal Reserve began it’s mission to enslave the nation (publicly and privately) in debt while enabling Washington to potentially spend without limit. Around the same time the National Guard was formalized and strengthened, giving Washington military control over the entire nation.

The ensuing 100 years saw an exponential growth in government, the decline of civil liberties, constant foolish wars, and the nationalization of serfdom.

Having recently lost our Cicero and Cato figures to retirement, we can only pray for a latter-day Cincinnatus.

That, along with the popularity of Posse Comitatus, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/posse-comitatus/, and other law-related columns, confirms my theory that people really like legal topics presented from a freedom-oriented perspective. These posts are lengthy too. That gives me hope that people are accepting, even anxious for libertarian solutions to modern law and policy problems.

I’ve got plenty of new stuff coming in the near future, including the second installment of Slavery in America. I plan to cover things like: The Constitution, Constitutional law, law school (don’t go…), the debt-bomb, some non-political/legal matters, and many more subjects. For now, let’s have a look at a little news:

I’m still predicting the GOP will cave on ……(wait for it)……tHEEEEEE SEQUESTER!!!!!!! [maniacal laughter while thunder booms ominously]. I think they will cave tomorrow, maybe late. Who knows.

Today, the Elephantiasis party erased all doubts as they forcefully wrested the WE ARE CRAZY AS HELL title from the Donkeys. Mad Mitch McConnell and Company today released a plan to cave on THE SEQUESTER [a woman screams hysterically] and, in exchange for selling out their very last shred of principle, the RepubliCONS propose ceding Congress’s Constitutional authority to control the federal budget to the White House. I’m not making this up, here’s the story from Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/senate-gop-ponders-shifting-power-to-obama-88149.html?hp=l1.

First, the cave is a given, it will happen even without the theatrics. Second, this scheme is illegal. The Constitution is clear who is supposed to make the budget. Oh wait … we don’t have federal budgets anymore. It’s still illegal. How’s that for “conservative”? They will side-step a good law just so they can break the Supreme Law of the Land. Criminal. Lastly, this strategy (if you can call it that) is mind-bogglingly stupid. I can’t even wrap my boggle around it yet. I don’t want to…

In other news, Bob Woodward joined the ranks of Kanye West and just about everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere who think President Sotoro is “mad.” Read all about it, from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/27/us-usa-fiscal-woodward-idUSBRE91Q11620130227. The White House has apparently threatened Woodward over his remarks. WARNING: If you live near Mr. Woodward just remember drones and their missiles don’t make a peep until the blast occurs. This might be a good time to vacate the neighborhood. Just sayin.

All of this proves my point from Politics: our “leaders” are a bunch of idiots, lunatics, and psychopaths. I find this a little more important than who is refusing to host the Oscars again. How bout you?

I have studied politics (formally and informally) since around 1980. In those days, everyone in the South tended to be Democrats, party-wise. My parents were proud Democrats at the time and were horrified when Ronald Reagan won the Presidency. I watched on. As the years progressed, I decided I was a “conservative” and, therefore, a Republican, much like Reagan.

I watched Family Ties back then and might have been influenced by the antics of Alex P. Keating. Then came the Rush Limbaugh era; I listened everyday after high school while working as a runner for a local law firm. I knew Rush was right. Well, something in my subconscious had doubts. In college I drifted into libertarian thought and have remained there ever since. As the years pass I become closer and closer to a full-blown anarchist.

During this time, while I descended from a believer in minimal government to a dreamer about no government, reality took a turn for the worse. The whole of my dear country seems to have gone the other way! Whereas we had a big government when I was a child, now we have a GIGANTIC monstrosity of a government that seems to grow geometrically ever second.

Hence my disconnect from the world of practical politics. It is patently obvious that there is no discernible difference between the two major parties in America – they both lead to bigger and more controlling governance. Over the years I supported several politicians in various ways – both Republicans and Libertarians (I have Democrat friends too). My support usually faded away with my short, rambling attention span. I have never been a member of any party. I am proud of that; I hate political parties.

(Politicians soliciting contributions. Google Images.)

In his Farewell Address to the nation, President George Washington devoted nearly two pages to warning the people about party politics. He began: “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.” Thereupon he listed the many dangers of “faction” at the expense of Public Liberty. He closed with a thought on excessive party politics: “A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.” See: The Founder’s Almanac, pp. 309 – 310, The Heritage Foundation, Washington 2002. Given Washington’s fame and standing you would think more people would have listened; they did not and American “democracy” became an all-consuming conflagration.

H.L. Mencken wrote in the Minority Report (1956): “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – both commonly succeed, and are right.” Mencken defined “democracy” as “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Every election since has proved him right on both counts.

The most excited I ever got about any election(s) was in 2008 and 2012 supporting Ron Paul. I knew then Dr. Paul was an anomaly in American politics. My fellow citizens chose a different path and now Dr. Paul is retired. With him, at the end of 2012, went Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Washington is now devoid of any statesmen whatsoever and the only small impediments to Total Government are gone. I would like to believe Dr. Paul’s son, the other Dr. Paul, will follow in his father’s hallowed footsteps; I don’t think it will happen.

I have decided to waste no more time following the stupidity (which worsens daily) of field level politics. My personal academic concentration is now centered on political theory or philosophy and the history thereof. A good friend of mine says that America is finished, like a $500 car in need of $5000 worth of repairs. For our generation I fear he may be on to something. Still, I hold some hope for the future.

My fledgling professional academic career is and will be focused on educating younger persons about the mistakes of faith in politics and government, the evils resulting from such faith, and alternatives to the status quo.

Perhaps the most honest book ever written about American politics is Parliament of Whores by P.J. O’Rourke (1991). The title says it all. Inside the reader will discover, among many other witty things, a whole section of chapters entitled, The Three Branches of Government: Money, Television and Bullshit. Perfect.

Government and politics in general, particularly in America, really do center on O’Rourke’s three “branches.”

Money in politics is not necessarily the root of all evil, but it certainly is the tool of all evil in politics. It takes a lot of money to get elected to national or state office in the first place. Savy politicians set up campaign funds legally designed to break or sidestep any campaign finance laws in the way. Then the ticks turn around and suck blood from any source to fill their funds. Sometimes they contribute a little of their own money but most of it comes from “donors.” People all over give a little here and there to help some bozo get elected; once elected the bozo ignores the little people. The big bucks come from the special interest groups, they get the politician’s attention post-election.

Money flows into Washington, D.C. and the several State capitals by the dump truck load. Giant corporations and the super rich constantly brib ..er.. give to elected officials in all kinds of ways. Sometimes they support a pet project of the tick’s (charity, etc.), sometimes they provide booze and hookers, they give kickbacks and favors, and sometimes they just give plain old cash in brown- paper grocery bags. The amount of money flowing into the Capital is astounding, but it pales in comparison to the money flowing out.

This year, like last year, the federal government will spend something like 3.5 Trillion dollars per its official “budget.” I just put “budget” between quotation marks because Congress hasn’t put forth an actual budget, as required by the Constitution, in years. Alarmingly, the vast majority of federal spending is on UnConstitutional programs. The government spends a huge percentage of that money out of debt. Fully a third of the budget is borrowed these days. Check out the U.S. Debt Clock for a good fright: http://www.usdebtclock.org/. In fact, I believe the borrowed sum exceeds the amount paid by individual taxpayers. Corporations also pay for a larger portion of the budget than do the individual taxpayers. However, as with any business expense, corporations pass their taxes along to customers via higher prices for their goods and services. So the People ultimately pay those taxes as well. Aaaaand, guess who guarantees the huge debts run up by the ticks? Yes, taxpayers again. So, Ma and Pa America have to pay for all the illegal, unnecessary spending of the government, even when they receive no representation for their money.

Like I said, most government programs are not grounded in the Constitution and are therefore illegal. Of the $3.5 trillion spent, Medicare and Medicaid get about $800 billion. They are not in the Constitution. Social Security, the third rail of tick-dom, gets a similar amount. Not in the Constitution. Our never-ending, foreign, undeclared wars of aggression get a slightly smaller amount. Being undeclared and indefensible, they to are also illegal. The total of interest on the national debt, federal pension costs, and various welfare programs get a similar amount of funding. Like undeclared warfare, specific welfare is also illegal. As none of the programs are needed there is no need for all the federal employees vested in those pensions. If the government didn’t spend so damn much money there would be no debt and, thus, no interest. The “legitimate” functions of the federal government are mostly unnecessary anymore, and those that are should really only cost us a few hundred billion dollars per year at most. That could easily be covered by tariffs and import fees – as the government was supposed to be funded and was funded for years without trouble.

I could go on and on with the money stuff but we still have television and bullshit….

Television is really representative of all major media, both news and entertainment, in this nation. Whether you get your news on TV, from the radio, or from a print medium, it’s all the same. The government puts out a line of crap and the media runs with it. Very seldom in America are we treated to any critical reporting anymore. Remember those special interests? They own the media nearly completely. Towing the line is part of the overall scheme.

This scheme extends into non-news entertainment. Reality shows, pro sports, pop music and other trivial pursuits are the modern bread and circuses of Amerika. While you drunkenly watch 300-pound men decked out in pink play with a ball, the government is stealing you blind and destroying your country. The ticks laugh at you too.

Bullshit. It’s a crude term but it accurately describes everything I’ve been writing about. It’s also all you ever get from the government. Mostly everything you hear, see, or read from the government or its pet media are outright lies. Very little the ticks do is honest or important so they have to concoct wild stories to get you to go along – provided you even pay attention, most people do not. For instance, when Washington goes to war the ticks always say it’s over something noble like “keeping the world safe for democracy” or “fighting the ‘terrorists’.” Saying they want to keep profits high for the military-industrial complex (a special interest) doesn’t sound as good. When President Obama announced ObamaCare, he didn’t say he wanted windfall profits for the insurance and finance companies of America (special interests). He said it was all to help the children, or the less fortunate, or you and me. Bullshit!

And when the government and the ticks tell the truth, it’s truly frightening. The Whitehouse says it will use drones to kill Americans without Due Process. You better believe they will! When Congress authorizes an illegal ponzi scheme like Social Security or an illegal monopoly like the Federal Reserve (the biggest special interest of all), they do so openly and with impunity.

My point is … well, I’ve already made it – I do not like modern, practical politics and for good reason.

The next time you come into contact with a tick, instead of giving it money and voting it into office, get out the tweezers and the alcohol. I’m Perrin Lovett and I approve this message.

I am blown away by the attention this site is getting. Do you people really read these long-winded posts??? I hope so.

Here’s what I’ve been doing while posting, working, fathering, etc.:

I’m smoking another gigantic cigar, the Grand Habano, Grand Reserve, #5, 2010, Grandioso. It’s a 7×70 (huge) beast of a Nicaraguan cigar! The best stuff comes from Nicaragua now, not Cuba. I have a host of friends on their way there tonight, they’re (used en all in one sentence!) guests once again of Nick Perdomo, master of Esteli!

PPS: A serious note. I’ve been getting a great deal of feedback about the site here and on my email and FB. I try to respond to all of them. If you have a question or comment you want addressed, add it as a comment to the particular article here. That will make it easier for me to answer. Cheers!

I have more information on my speaking engagement in March. As I posted the other day, I will address the Libertarian Party of greater Augusta, GA on Sunday, March 10, 2013 at 1 p.m. The event will be at The Roadrunner Cafe, 2821 Washington Road, Augusta, GA 30909. My topic will be citizen encounters with the police, to include special attention towards armed civilian encounters. It is sure to be informative and entertaining.

Everyone is welcomed to attend, though there will be some organization business which only members can participate in. Check out the Roadrunner website for menu items: http://www.roadrunnercafe.com/. There is no charge associated with the meeting but you will probably want to order food or drinks. Those of you in the first two rows may want to wear ponchos or plastic trash bags … just kidding. Come on out, if you are a freedom lover. Washington Road is exit 199 off I-20 in Augusta (the main Masters exit). I will shortly post bullet points related to my talk.

Speaking of which, earlier today I released How to Interact with the Police, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/how-to-interact-with-the-police/, a short, overly simplified article on what to do when confronted by the cops, armed or otherwise. This has proven to be a very popular column as, oddly, many of my legal posts are. I’m glad I can be of service to you. A follow-up may be in order. If you haven’t read it yet, please do so. The central theme is “Don’t Talk” to the police. Talking gets people arrested and convicted.

Aaaand, speaking of the blog: thank you for making today the biggest, best, highest-trafficked day in blog history! I am impressed and humbled by the attention. I have a super post coming tomorrow. It will deal with practical politics in the U.S.A., with horrifying figures and facts and unusually humorous sarcasm. Check it out tomorrow!

News comment of the day: Back to … ThE SEQUESTER!! Hahahaha [maniacal…]. Drudge is asking will Boehner and Co. cave? I ask when, not if? My guess is thursday the 28th. We shall see. Also, apparently by the headline, Chris Christie, one of the current GOP golden boys, has endorsed ObamaCare or something. Is anyone surprised? For my many Republican friends, again I ask you to demonstrate for me how your party differs at all from the Democrats. I just don’t see it, except for the mascots.

Don’t talk. Do not ever talk to the police under any circumstances whatsoever, ever. Ever. This is the general libertarian legal advice given by good lawyers who wish to spare their clients and anyone else listening the possibility of unwittingly implicating themselves in criminal activity, whether they were actually involved or not.

I like this advice and tend to give it to clients myself. However, as with most legal issues, this matter is not quite that simple. Well, maybe it is, but there are reasons why you might need to address the cops. I’ll get to those a little later.

On March 10, 2013 I will address the Libertarian Party of the greater Augusta, Georgia area. I was asked to speak on the subject of citizen interaction with the police in general and, more specifically, interactions involving a citizen carrying a firearm. I will do so happily. This column is a preview of what I will likely discuss.

There are two federally recognized (sometimes) natural rights which are affected by such situations – actually, they are different tangents of the same right – the right to self-preservation. The first involves not implicating oneself in wrongdoing, the second involves the right of self-defense. The Constitution lists these rights under Amendments V and II, respectively. All State Constitutions recognize the same rights to a degree somewhere within their texts. I’ll stick with federal language as a universal representation:

The Fifth Amendment reads: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The above subject primarily deals with the “witness against himself” clause, though due process is implicated as well.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This relates, obviously, to carrying a weapon while interacting with the police.

Both of these rights, despite laws and court rulings in their favor, have experienced considerable erosion since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (most rights have). I will not necessarily discuss the origin of the rights, their history, or their decline herein. As is, I will just accept them as plainly written.

Back to not talking to the police. Many attorneys, including yours truly, generally advise against talking to government employees of any stripe, not simply the police. This extends to telephone conversations (including 911 calls) as such calls are frequently recorded. I recently posted a link to this video (Don’t Talk to the Police): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc. The video is a 50 minute discussion of our subject by Regent Law School (Virginia) law professor James Duane. The advice is excellent. You’ll notice though that immediately after saying he will never talk to the police, professor Duane talks to a police officer. There are almost always exceptions to a general rule.

I’ll cover a few of those now. If you are a law professor who gives such a talk and you invite a police officer to participate, you will need to talk to the police. If you’re a nice person who walks by a cop on a sunny morning, you might say, “Good Morning!” – that’s talking to the police. If your child is kidnapped late one night you will probably call the police before anyone else. If you are the victim of another type of violent crime you might talk. If you are drunk, high, suffering from low blood sugar, or under a mental delusion, you might talk to the police, not remembering any of this advice at the time. If your friend, relative, co-worker, or neighbor is a cop … you get the picture.

Other government employees sometimes require your verbal attention too. These examples are almost too numerous to list. They range from telling a campaigning CongressCritter to buzz off when he disturbs your breakfast at the local cafe (happened to me once) to asking a clerk where the county vehicle tag office is.

Most of these examples are innocent enough. However, sometimes the police arrest and persecute people for innocent interactions. I had a client once who singed an insurance policy while paying for it. He was later arrested and charged with felony insurance fraud based on his signature. The crime didn’t even involve his particular policy. In such cases, no advice is sufficient; one must engage a competent attorney and fight the system.

My subject matter here is really how to interact with the cops when you are approached about a possible criminal action wherein you might be a suspect.

I recall from law school there are three tiers of citizen-police encounters. The first is a simple and voluntary meeting (like some of my above examples) wherein the citizen is free to leave. If you find yourself in a Tier One and you suspect the officer is probing you, ask if you are free to leave. If you are, do so immediately. Remember you do not have to say anything to the police no matter what they ask or say. In these simple situations you can just walk away and terminate the encounter.

The second tier is known in legal circles as a Terry stop (see: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). It is also more commonly called an investigatory stop. That means the approaching officer is officially investigating some alleged or potential criminal wrongdoing. The citizen is not necessarily free to leave and is technically under detention, even if temporarily so. A Tier One becomes a Terry stop if the officer responds that the citizen is not free to leave. At this point the citizen should shut up. The exceptions are again to ask if you are free to leave or if you are under arrest and to tell the officer you do not consent to any searches. Do not ever consent to searches.

The police are not supposed to arbitrarily initiate Terry stops (they do sometimes). Rather, they are supposed to have “articulable suspicion” that a crime has or may have been committed and that the citizen is a likely suspect or witness. The standard for such suspicion varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and by the individual case, though the common maxim is the officer must have something more than a hunch about the possible crime. Fuzzy, yes.

Terry stops originate from many sources: tips or reports of crime, something the officer witnesses, an emergency, a man-hunt, or something else. Frequently, the police have nothing at all in the way of evidence. Thus, they turn to the citizen for incriminating evidence. Citizens offer the evidence against themselves voluntarily in most cases. If you ever saw the TV show Cops, then you know a suspect will immediately start babbling on about what he did or didn’t do. This usually digs the suspect a nice hole – with bars. This is why you shouldn’t say anything. Do not help the police do their job. At this point you will either be arrested, further temporarily detained, or released regardless of what you say. Talking won’t help, so don’t do it.

The third tier is a formal arrest. If you are arrested you must absolutely cease talking period. At some point the police will advise you of your Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) – you know these from TV. They will tell you you have the right to remain silent and that anything you saycan and will be used against you. Did you get that? Anything you say will be used against you. Give them nothing. Under arrest you only make one statement, repeatedly in necessary: “I want an attorney.” The police usually stop questioning at that point, sometimes they don’t. Just do not answer or make any other statements – at all. Be silent as you have the right.

Silence is the better rule in most of these encounters. By talking you will either implicate yourself or possibly give the officer(s) something else to consider in your prosecution. Sometimes officers hear things wrong or falsely report what a citizen says. They can make you out to be a liar. You’re not lying if you’re not talking.

I have been retained by several clients just over the issue of voluntary interrogations. I stopped the practice entirely after so many such incidents. The client would get a call from the police, asking the client to “come downtown” to answer a few questions or make a statement. Once a client demanded to visit the Sheriff to make a statement all on his own – over a non-issue. My constant advice to all of these folks was to not go and to say nothing. Most did not listen and I had to accompany them to the Q&A sessions. At those meetings I objected to each and every question the police asked and every statement the client uttered. That did not stop most of these people. I have literally watched as people talked themselves into felony prosecutions. Seeing the process as pointless and potentially liability-inducing on my part, I stopped participating. Don’t put your attorney through such torture. Don’t talk.

I’ve also been hired by clients after they talked to the police. I have read many statements and listened to many recording wherein a client essentially convicted himself. Often, without their own damning, idiotic testimony through such statements, the government would never have had a case to try. Don’t talk to the police.

Firearms add an extra dimension to the issue. America is the most heavily, privately armed country in the world. We should rejoice! The primary reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure the People would always be able to fend off a tyrannical government, all other purposes are ancillary.

Unfortunately, much has changed since 1791. Today, many Americans are afraid of firearms (and much else) and defer unwisely to the government for protection. Their fears are fueled by a few isolated stories from the lamestream media. Many of these cases, I suspect, are false-flag operations of the government, ginned up to alarm the frightened people. Remember always – “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken.

In the old days, no-one looked twice at a person carrying a gun in public. It was what Americans did. You can still find the practice accepted in many rural communities. The practice is open and notorious in Switzerland (God bless the Swiss).

(A Swiss Militia member openly carrying a battlefield rifle in a grocery store. The blonde woman is not concerned – free people are not. Source: Google Images.)

The local LP sent me a video of a law student telling off a police officer who “detained” the student over a firearm. I seem to have misplaced the video link. You can surely find it or something similar on Youtube. Here’s my take on the matter. First, Americans have every right to go armed just about anywhere they want to, even though many jurisdictions illegally attempt to block this right. Second, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor – more on that in a second. Third, in the Georgia and much of the South, we are lucky to have pro-gun law enforcement. Many officers welcome armed citizens.

Let’s assume for argument’s sake, you encounter an officer with a dimmer view of freedom. Georgia and most other States allow concealed carry of weapons – usually with a permit. I think those permits are UnConstitutional. A few States like Vermont do not regulate of require such licenses. This issue is slowing making its way through the courts. We will see what becomes of it. For now, if you carry concealed, play the government’s game.

To avoid an unwanted and unnecessary confrontation over your gun, carry concealed. If they (the police or the easily alarmed) can’t see the weapon, they can’t inquire about it. Some State’s licenses come with the requirement that a citizen inform any approaching or present law officer that they have a license and are carrying. North and South Carolina come to mind. This is also UnConstitutional. Georgia is not such a State. Say nothing in Georgia. In fact, if you have the gun well concealed, say nothing wherever you are. If they don’t know, they don’t know – and they don’t need to.

If you carry openly, which is your right, you may expect someone to alert the police to “a man with a gun.” As a result, you may be approached by an officer. This would be a quasi-tier one/two encounter. Carrying a gun itself is not justification for any suspicion of wrongdoing. The police will inquire anyway. They may go as far as to handcuff you while they check your license and the gun. This a violation of your civil rights. I had a friend who was stopped by a traffic officer in Ludowici, Georgia one night. The officer inquired about my friend’s pistol and took the gun to “check it.” The officer then announced he would have to keep the gun until the next day in order to verify it really belonged to my friend and was carried properly. This was in keeping with Ludowici’s long-standing policy of public harassment.

Before I became really upset about the story my friend told me it had ended well. The Ludowici police chief, realised his officer had broken the law, immediately dispatched a courier to hand deliver the gun back to my friend. As my friend was happy, the issue died. A bloodless victory is the best kind as we say in court.

However, if you find yourself in a similar situation, the best thing to do is keep quiet. Do not tell off the officer as the afore-noted law student did, even though you are completely right. The police sometimes get nervous and arrest or murder “uppity” civilians and make up a good excuse for their actions in their report. The street is not the place to fight for your rights – unless the officer endangers your life. You can use force against the police if necessary, just as you would against any other armed thug. But, these situations are messy at best.

It is usually after such an encounter you should act – by contacting an attorney. You may very well have a civil rights action against the police (State or local) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or a Bivens action against federal officers [Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)]). An attorney can advise you in a particular case.

Two more specific situations, very briefly. First, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting you will likely have contact with the police. In such cases always identify yourself as the victim of the underlying crime. In order to legally use deadly force against another, one must reasonable belive that one’s life is in imminent danger from a criminal actor who simultaneously posses the ability and the proximity to in fact endanger innocent life. This is the general public standard, in most jurisdictions you have more leeway on your own property (stand your ground and castle statutes).

If you have to shoot someone (I hope you never do), report only the fact of the crime and that you ended it per the standard I just stated. The police may want additional statements. Do not make them. Tell the officer you take the matter very seriously and that you need to, accordingly, speak with your attorney before making any additional statements or answering any other questions. Again, if you are arrested (not always a given, here), say absolutely nothing. I am referral attorney for the Armed Citizen’s Legal Defense Fund, based in Washington State, http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/. The Fund has produced an excellent series of videos on this subject. Legal and tactical shooting experts discuss in-depth how to handle these situations with your gun and with the law. I recommend you purchase and review these videos.

Second, if you are at home and the police knock on the door, do not open it. Do not let the police in volutarily for any reason. This by itself constitutes a consentual search (at least cursory). If the police have authority (a warrant) to enter your home, they will do it rather than asking you for permission. If they ask, they have no authority. Don’t help them gain it. I have former clients in prison because they opened a door for the police. Don’t do it and don’t talk to them.

Remember, in a specific case you may have, consult with a specific attorney for legal advice.

As for advice, nothing herein constitutes legal advice. Consider this, rather, a general legal education. When you see the police use common sense and do not talk if you can help it. Doing the first and refraining from the second may save you many headaches.

At the end of that early missive I promised to cover possible solutions to the mounting problem of federal tyranny. Specifically, I named interposition, nullification, and secession as possibilities. Let’s talk about those now, briefly.

Well, first let’s see how the Republicans did with reversing the law as they boasted they would. I recall some GOPer saying they would overturn the nightmarish law before the Supremes even got to rule on it. Didn’t happen. After the ruling they said they would eliminate the massive tax act before their chosen man, Mittens Romney, the founder of the ObamaCare School of Medicine, won the election. None of that happened either. With the nation staring down the barrel of a potentially economy-wrecking gun, they said they would stop the law before it took effect on January 1st of this year. Having proven themselves to be lying, delusional idiots, we can write off the buffoons of the Elaphantitis party.

Back to my proposals – I’ll take them in the order I first set forth, as that seems to be the hierarchy from least to most extreme.

Interposition

Interposition is a process whereby a State of the American Union declares an Act of Congress or some other federal action to be UnConstitutional and positions itself as a shield between the feds and the citizens of the State. Wikipedia says that the federal courts have held this an illegitimate theory and that only they have the power of Constitutional review – “Judicial Review.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition. Wiki doesn’t mention it by name, but the theory of Judicial Review originated, federally speaking, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Maybe you’ve heard of this landmark case, students of “Constitutional Law” are taught to revere it. I was never impressed.

First, this was one of a shady series of early Supreme Court cases concerning personal profits unfit for court review at all. Second, if this case did deserve formal investigation and resolution, then such should have been undertaken by the political branches whom the matter concerned anyway. Third, and most importantly, judicial review by the federal courts is a legal fiction. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right granted the courts to rule so authoritatively on our laws. Had the Framers intended such power, they would have written it in; several State Constitutions do grant this power to State Courts (Georgia, for example).

I do not withhold the ability of any court to say a law is UnConstitutional. Courts should point such out when discovered. In fact, any branch may make that determination. President Bush, the Dimmer, said that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law was UnConstitutional, then signed it anyway. Before that, obviously, Congress had deliberated on the law and must have sensed its illegality. Bush remarked that the Supreme Court would have to make the ultimate determination. They did. Ironically, the Court essentially said (and rightly) the law concerned only the political branches and since both had approved the measure, they would too out of deference. I had an outrageously humorous “discussion” about this fiasco with a political celebrity in 2004; I’ll relate that in a future post. This was a case of government gone wild. Of the three branches, law-making is the art of Congress; correcting bad laws is also.

Anyone who can read and think can declare a law within or without the bounds of the Constitution. I do it all the time. However, my power of enforcement is rather weak to say the least. The theory of interposition, and that of nullification, comes from the ability of the States to so declare a law. Their power is greater than mine and their authority is a bit more grounded than that of the Courts. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const., Amendment 10. UnConstitutional laws are those based in authority which is not among those very few expressly Constitutionally delegated powers of the national government ,and thus, are within the purview of the States to affect. The Tenth Amendment’s reference to “the people” is as fuzzy a concept as anything else in man’s law. Ultimately, under our form of republican government, the people have the final say on authority as exercised by their voting. The people prove time and again to be useless guardians of their own liberties.

Interposition was made famous long ago by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798), which declared the States’ ability to invalidate federal law. The practice was used to various effect in the 1800’s. Times have changed dramatically (for the worse) since that Century, with the States giving away a great deal of their former power. There was also the matter of the war between the States which decided by force and murder, rather than by law, some of these issues.

Nullification

Nullification is essentially Interposition but with an added declaration by a State or States they will not enforce a federal law or allow enforcement within their territory. This theory was set forth also by the afore-noted Resolutions. It has been erroneously dismissed by the courts. And, it would seem to reside in a previous time. The theory has raised its head recently though, as it does from time to time. A few States have begun to void federal laws in principle at least. Montana, for example, has decided that certain federal firearms laws do not apply within the Montana state lines. It remains to be seen whether Montana or other modern States will actually take any action necessary to give life to their declarations.

In the old days, States did just that. The 19th Century was repeat with State and local agents boldly denying the federal government on certain matters. When a federal agent or officer appeared to enforce a particular objectionable action, the locals would run the fellow out of town on a rail, literally sometimes. A great read on the subject is Thomas Woods’s Nullification (2010), http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490.

Again, with the demise of State power and authority in general (see the 16th and 17th Amendments, etc.) the plausibility of nullification seems a dim prospect.

Secession

Dimmer still, is the ultimate practice of State dissent. The original 13 colonies of England, once they had declared their independence from the King, became 13 independent nations. They joined together to fight the Revolutionary War and then entered into a Federation for mutual benefit. A federation is a group of sovereign entities which come together for some purpose; they remain sovereign. The Constitution changed none of this. No language therein makes the federal union permanent and eternally binding upon the member States.

Should a State find itself at unacceptable odds with the central government, it has the power to dissolve its connections and become a completely separate nation again. Several State assemblies expressly said so when they ratified the Constitution. This is in complete keeping with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, just substitute U.S.A. for King George, III.

Again, and again and again, the States have not only given up power to Washington over the years, they have also become somewhat dependent on D.C. and tend to exhibit a slavish loyalty thereto. This all renders the prospect of a State succeeding in the 21st Century remote. There are secessionist movements in some States, like the Free Vermont Republic. The FVR even has its own flag, but little chance of success.

There is also the specter of Mr. Lincoln’s illegal war. The war decided nothing formally or legally. Wars are not rational undertaking, just pure contests of military power. Since 1865 the several States have all but abandoned their military power while Washington has assembled the most awesome and dreaded arsenal in the history of mankind. While secession remains a perfectly legal option, the odds of success do not favor the States.

Where We Are

In today’s political climate none of these three solutions are likely to receive formal discussion by the several States, let alone action. Deprived of legal and political solutions, what then are we to do?

Some people with means are beginning to leave the United States for smaller, freer countries. I do not begrudge them their decisions. However, I do not like the idea of being run out of my homeland and into a foreign country where, as history dictates, anything can and will happen. In a way, I would rather stay and face the devil I know here.

There is always the ability of the States or of Congress to call for a new Constitutional Amendment or even a Convention wherein objectionable laws might be remedied. Amendments are hard to pass these days. It’s hard to get Congress or the legislature of any State to act productively or intelligently. Honestly, the idea of a new Constitutional Convention scares me. While one could hypothetically end with great advances in Liberty, such as returning to the Articles of Confederation or just eliminating the national government completely, I fear, given the weakness of the people and their representatives, we could end up with something far worse. Imagine 1984, Farenheit 451, Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union all rolled into one!

Every two years or so the citizens of the States have the opportunity to turn out at least a third of the federal government’s elected morons. The power to change the government lies with the people by their dismissing representatives who do not do their bidding. The people must not be aware of this authority or else, they must approve of their government as is. Options grow thin.

Time will eventually change everything. 5,000 years from now most people living won’t remember the United States. Given the self-destructive tendencies of our government, it is likely we need not wait that long. Either way, awaiting the inevitable collapse of leviathan, like expectations of the end of days, is tedious at best.

I’ll see if I can come up with something else more actionable. You work on it too.

I have a post underway about the history of gun control in America, which has racist origins – from plantation masters afraid of armed blacks to “progressives” copying Hitler. This video reminds me of a column by Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, a few years ago about people in the country being freer than people in cities. Gun control nazis knowingly disarm minorities and anyone else in major cities line NYC, D.C. and Chicago as the video makes clear. Point this out to your local elected idiots and ask them if they support racism.